nfreeman

Certainly the Deluca .500 concept is rough justice. @Taro T's approach of needing 1.2 pts per game is more precise. I rely on Deluca .500 because (i) it allows you to look at just their record, without checking the standings, to get a sense of where they are, (ii) the loser pts tend to even out over time and (iii) Deluca .500 is a surprisingly accurate barometer despite its shortcomings -- i.e. teams that finish below that line very seldom make the playoffs, and teams that finish above it usually make it and are just about always in the running. For example, if the Sabres rip off a 4-game winning streak starting tonight, I will offer a Sabrespace guarantee that everyone here will be talking playoffs.

They are 3 games under DeLuca .500. If they don’t fall any further, and rip off a 4-game winning streak, they will be solidly in playoff contention.

Well, it's a message board. People disagree, and many who do so will be defending the home team, especially after a couple of wins. But no one is being shouted down, and criticism of KA is far from prohibited. For that matter, I think there is quite a bit of support for calling things as they are, and plenty of recognition that the all-or-nothing perspective is flawed. I think very few here would say that KA is batting 1.000. Speaking only for myself, I take issue with the claims that KA has decided not to improve the team and is sitting on his hands for some unexplained reason, and that it's not difficult to get good players who want to be here. Both of these are demonstrably false and IMHO kinda silly. That doesn't mean that I don't think KA is accountable for the team he ices and the results it produces, including, if Comrie isn't the guy and the goaltending stinks again, for failing to improve one of the most important spots on the roster. He is 100% accountable.

First bolded -- then why did he try to trade for Matt Murray, who, as noted upthread, makes $6.25MM per year (Ottawa retained 25% when they traded him to Toronto, so Toronto is on the hook for $4.6875MM per year)? 2nd bolded -- this is just assuming away the issue by assuming a happy ending. IMHO, the Sabres have had enough disgruntled players here, in full view of KA, for KA to reasonably decide that the wrong attitude about being here is a deal-breaker. You are of course free to disagree. 3rd bolded -- I don't see how Anderson supports your view. Anderson originally signed here as a vet minimum UFA. Obviously he was happy to be here. That's an entirely different situation from trading for someone who is unhappy about being forced to be here against his will. 4th bolded -- was trading for Matt Murray at a high cash and cap hit, after 3 crappy seasons and 2 teams giving up on him, not taking a risk? What about committing long-term and large dollars to TT and Mule after a half-season of strong play?

So, it looks like tomorrow we'll get the following, which is what we saw in the 2nd & 3rd periods vs SJ: VO-Jost-Mitts Zemgus-Krebs-KO VO-Jost-Mitts was terrible vs SJ, while Zemgus-Krebs-KO was lousy in the 2nd period but quite good in the 3rd period. I'm not optimistic about VO-Jost-Mitts, but I want to see it for more than a couple of periods. I'm cautiously optimistic about Zemgus-Krebs-KO, as I think Zemgus' and KO's strengths complement Krebs' weaknesses well, and Krebs brings some playmaking and ability to create chances to the table. As a related matter, DG was on WGR this morning and said that he knows Mitts and VO have been struggling, but he thinks they are improving and on the right track.

First bolded -- I'm pretty sure it means KA wants guys who are psyched to be members of the Sabres, not guys who reluctantly took the $$ because they had no other options or guys who were traded here against their will. 2nd bolded -- you keep saying this too. Again, the trade market isn't a magic solution to the "don't want to be here" issue. KA isn't going to trade for someone who is going to be unhappy if he is traded here. I agree that if they start winning, more guys will want to be here. That doesn't mean that trading for guys who don't want to be here will make them start winning. As for the payroll, I'll ask you the same question I asked SidC: do you not think that if a good goalie or top-4 defenseman, or both, had wanted to join the Sabres last summer at, say, $4MM to $5MM per year, KA would've signed them?

I agree that KA has a plan for the cap, and that it almost certainly includes big contracts for Cozens and Dahlin next summer. I also agree that KA needs to discuss and justify his expenditures to TP. But I also am very confident that if, say, a good goalie or top-4 defenseman, or both, had wanted to join the Sabres last summer at, say, $4MM to $5MM per year, KA would've been able to sign them. Do you not think so?

If TP were limiting the payroll, KA wouldn't have brought in a $2MM per year 4th-liner in Jost, or have attempted to bring in a reclamation project goalie who would've cost between $3.125MM and $6.25MM per year (depending on the amount of salary Ottawa would've retained) in Matt Murray, or have committed to $50MM for TT or $30MM for Mule. Again, you keep saying KA isn't trying to improve the team because he for some incomprehensible reason refuses to acquire a defenseman or another goalie. We know that one of KA's core principles is to bring in only guys who want to be here. Do you have any examples of guys who he could've brought in who would've been happy to come here?

I think I’ve been optimistic and confident about playoffs every single summer during this misbegotten streak, including after Black Sunday. This year they’re really going to make it though.

This is kinda cool: https://streamja.com/krpw1

I don't think it's reasonable to ask someone to prove a negative, or generally possible to prove a negative. If someone asserts that someone else posted something outlandish, it's on the poster making the assertion to prove it -- not on the skeptics to prove it didn't happen.

I too think 55 pts is much more realistic for Cuzzie than 80 is, and that this line will cool off once the opponents get some film on them and start prioritizing defending them, and if and when the Sabres get back to being a team that generally gets the opponents' #1 goalies and A games. Still, I wouldn't be shocked if Cozens hits 60 pts. More importantly, it looks like there is a pretty good likelihood that Cozens will develop into a quality #2 C, which is a precious commodity in the NHL, and gives the Sabres a good shot at a strong C group generally, if Savoie, Kulich, Östlund and/or Krebs can develop into a good #3 C.

I did think about it. Every team has injuries, losing streaks and other idiosyncratic obstacles that it needs to overcome to win in the NHL. The Sabres had some injuries and went to pieces, resulting in an awful losing streak and in turn their current record. If the Sabres are unable to avoid going to pieces when they have injuries -- which are inevitable, including to key players -- then they simply won't be good enough to make the playoffs, and certainly not to be contenders. It's not that complicated.

My point is that it kinda does define them though, at least in part. They lost a key defender -- a guy who is pretty likely to sustain injuries and miss time regularly -- and they went to pieces. If Mule blocks a shot and goes down again for, say, 6 games, are you confident that they won't go 1-5 in those 6 games? A team is what its record says it is.

Ahem. Separately -- without looking, does anyone know the name for a group of raccoons? Or bears? A group of raccoons is a "gaze." A group of bears is a "sleuth." EDIT: if anyone knows the spoiler tags, I'd appreciate a refresher!

Indeed. I do think though that Mule and Loobie both play the kind of games that are going to result in their missing time on the regular. The team can't go to pieces when that happens -- if it does, it's a fundamental flaw relating to depth, mental toughness, etc.

I think both can be true -- i.e. JJP and Quinn (and Power for that matter) can have character, determination, leadership, etc. and be great players, AND a team can need some snarl/edge to be a real contender. In fact, I think both are true. At some point the Sabres are going to need one or 2 forwards in the top 9 who bring some edge. Right now the only one who does is Cozens.

Well, I don't think anyone here could be super-confident that @GASabresIUFAN hasn't ever advocated for an 8-year extension for Mitts at $10MM per year. Certainly it would've been a fringe view. More to the point: Mitts and VO got completely caved in again last night, with under 7% of expected goals for. I'm glad DG tried something last night -- throwing Jost to the wolves by swapping him in for Krebs on that line -- but it didn't work at all. Jost ended up with only 2.53% of expected goals for. He was the only Sabre with a worse xGF than Mitts and VO. DG, I beseech you: split up Mitts and VO. Keep dressing them if you must, but everyone can see that they are disastrous together. If it were up to me, I'd bench Mitts for at least 2 gams and go with: VO-Jost-Asplund/Vinnie Zemgus-Krebs-KO

Yes indeed. No depth on D, shaky in net and overall kinda fragile mentally too. Also, during the losing streak, there was no scoring depth after TT's line. That has improved substantially, and I'm still hopeful about goalie once Comrie returns. We'll have to wait and see about mental toughness developing and whether reinforcements are brought in on D.

Well, I don't think we can just wish that losing streak away. It happened for reasons relating to the fundamental nature of the team.

VO — I fixed it.

This kid is going to be a freaking star.

This is fine as regards your willingness/unwillingness to be optimistic, but I assume you are willing to give KA a reasonable amount of time as GM to determine whether he’s the right guy? Separately, it looks like DG pulled the plug on Krebs centering for Mitts and VO after the first period tonight. I thought they weren’t good but were somewhat less terrible than the Mitts/VO line was before Krebs joined them in the Colorado game. In any case they gave up an ES goal in the first tonight, and DG swapped Krebs for Jost, but kept Mitts and VO together, with Jost centering them. That trio was terrible in the 2nd and 3rd, and put up zero resistance on SJ’s 3rd goal, which SJ scored immediately after the Sabres went up 5-2. Mitts might’ve been stapled to the bench after that goal. I thought Krebs dragged down Zemgus and KO in the 2nd after DG swapped him in for Jost, but that line, including Krebs, played pretty well in the 3rd. I continue to think Mitts and VO cannot play on the same line.

I'm kinda looking forward to seeing whether Krebs magically turns the Mitts-VO line into a fancystats dynamo again tomorrow night. As a related matter, and further to @Taro T's point upthread about usage, i.e. the opposing lines that the Mitts/VO line was facing, I found a site that provides that info: https://www.naturalstattrick.com/game.php?season=20222023&game=20365#shiftchart (although if Taro or anyone else knows a site that provides that info in a better format, pls post it.) It looks like Taro is mostly right, but not entirely, about Mitts' opposition vs Colorado: the line he faced most frequently was Colorado's 3rd line, which includes Newhook and Galchenyuk, but he faced their top line (MacKinnon/Rantanen) for close to the same amount of time as he faced their 4th line, and if you include their #2 line (Compher/Cogliano), Mitts faced their #1 or #2 lines more than he faced their 4th line. I point this out because, optimistically, it means that inserting Krebs at C and moving Mitts to wing, in a small sample size, made a big difference in that line's ability to compete and not get caved in -- and, importantly, it wasn't only in sheltered situations. Again, I'm looking forward to seeing whether this continues.

Well, yes, if he more than doubles his career-high scoring total of 25 pts, his value will probably increase relative to where it is right now. BTW, his shooting % this season is 14.3%, which is well above his career average of 11.3%, so it's not terribly likely that he'll maintain his YTD scoring pace. My point was that at present, no one would give the Sabres a #1, and probably not a #2 either, for him. Do you disagree? I agree with all of this and just have one minor quibble: I don't agree with the use of "bias," which has a negative connotation with implications of dishonesty, as a synonym for "opinion." GA has an opinion on Mitts, which is that he think Mitts is a better player than he's showing right now. His opinion on Mitts differs from the opinions of many others. I think he's probably wrong, but I don't see "bias" anywhere. Good call -- I can definitely see this happening.